251–260 of 278 posts
I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example. That's... surprising. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't believe you. But I'm definitely surprised - I've got a Series 2 which I get wet every day and even use while swimming and I haven't had any issues. My mother has a Series 2 or 3 which she also regularly uses while swimming. Per Apple's docume…
My wife's favorite watch is the Timex Women's Ironman Triathlon 50. The watch is labeled as being water resistant to 50 meters. Most complaints about this watch are that the band is crap and breaks after about a year of unextraordinary use. The other, is that after minimal contact with water, the inside of the watch face steams up. These aren't expensive watches, but they aren't cheap either. Not sure how a watch int…
A lot of the things we take for granted about the benefits of living in a capitalist society are side effects of capitalists traditionally not being very good at their jobs and giving customers stuff/benefits unintentionally. That seems to be going away thanks to IT and increased testing of assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Samsung isn’t the only one. Apple is similar too in its carve outs for water damage in it’s warranty. Im guessing samsung weasels out of it by saying water ‘resistance’ vs proof, but still marketing it with surfers and such? My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example.
> My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example. That's... surprising. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't believe you. But I'm definitely surprised - I've got a Series 2 which I get wet every day and even use while swimming and I haven't had any issues. My mother has a Series 2 or 3 which she also regularly uses while swimming. Per Apple's docume…
The malfunction happened to me after owning the watch for 14 months, and I swam with it in the ocean on month 4 with no problems. It was also fine on the first day, the issue started happening the day after. My theory is a very small amount of water got in, but it was enough to damage the oled screen inside.
The solution would be not using glue, but using screws or a bayonet on the back, but then it won't look like a seamless object. Maybe in the new non-jony era of apple they will make their watches properly waterproof? I doubt it although.
[0] https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Apple+Watch+Series+3+Display+Re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Samsung isn’t the only one. Apple is similar too in its carve outs for water damage in it’s warranty. Im guessing samsung weasels out of it by saying water ‘resistance’ vs proof, but still marketing it with surfers and such? My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example.
Apple is pretty clear about its water performance: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205000 Sorry to hear about your watch. I’ve been lucky enough to have it in the water plenty and never have a problem. Maybe go to an Apple store?
Unless it's up front and center as part of set up, it's not being upfront.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…
I’m a fan of forcing corporations to issue shares to the victims. Do something minor? 10% dilution. Do something worthy of the corporate death penalty? Issue 100 shares for every share outstanding. Of course, the issued shares would have as many votes as the maximum currently issued share (so if the founders get 10 votes per share that is what the victims get too). Note that you can set precedents based on percentage…
Typically, the victims of corporate malfeasance are considered to be the (existing) shareholders, in the American system. Like, there's a lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders when pretty much anything goes wrong that affects the stock price. There's quite a contrast to the common opinion on HN and elsewhere, where the shareholders are identified with the corporate malefactors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precedent is foundational to western law. The first judge to make a decision based on a law sets a precedent that informs how that law is interpreted in the future. This is a feature, not a bug because real world situations are messy, complicated, and dynamic. Trying to enumerate every legal interpretation and eventuality based on today's conditions and technology results in a law that won't be meaningful 5 years fro…
You really have that much faith in the US justice system that you don’t believe that partisan judges make judgements all of the time based on their belief system? Do you want to build a business based on the whims of a judge when you thought that you were following the law?
Also see: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-07/the-fe...
...in which Matt Levine juxtaposes the concepts of going by rules versus what he calls "legal realism".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm having trouble seeing the connection between these two issues. If we didn't treat corporations as people, how would that stop companies from using bots?
Citizens have a right to free speech. Corporations do not, unless they also happen to be people.
Could corporations get around the restrictions you have in mind by subcontracting speech to people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the solution is just to swear at the bot and you get punted to a human, the downside is many of the humans are no better than a bot.
Or you get a human that assumes the customer they are helping is abusive or problematic based on the prior messages, in which case they may be very unmotivated to help you.
I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…
Having anon accounts is good for HN but as soon as money is involved we need a structure that solves the identity for all people inside the transaction.
Technology has to become 1984 levels to ID users at all times. Better to have an identity relationship with a structure or body that you can meet with in real life, like a bank. A mix of tech and human relations is required for a sane identity relationship with this governing body and therefore everybody you do business with on the net.
Lying goes back to manageable levels once the identity is linked to someone's real life reputation.
I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…